stop degeneration of votechess!
Sort:
Would it be possible to have vote chess games that were comment free, and some that weren't?
Eric but I think the idea about putting in rating ranges would not change those factors. People of a giving rating range could still discuss, vote, and research. With rating ranges put into effect a couple of team members would not dominate the discussion as all member that can vote would be around the same level. Furthermore you could still allow those under the given rating range to join the team and see the comments for learning purposes. So that idea would not upset anyone because you could have rating restricted vote chess games and non rating restriction vote chess games just like you do in tournaments and it would be easy to implement. It is something you could try with little loss in time or resources.
Another idea that comes to mind when thinking of vote chess is to allow chess.com members to form teams and play against other teams in the same style of vote chess. That is another way members could form long term relationships with other members and learn from each other.
Erik has learned, and has set up what would appeal to the most people overall. I have yet to be on the losing end of a votechess game(though the GM Davies game may end that streak). My OTB rating in real life is not reflected on any website,or avatar, for I choose not do so. The ones who seem to dominate the discussions have the most time to dedicate to analysis. Yet they are open to any lines that are presented, and take the time to respond whether your posted rating is high or low. As far as limiting access to only those who agree with a particular viewpoint, hmmm, you have the right to leave of your own accord, but wish to deny the rights of others to experience the most unique learning opportunities ever presented, hmmm.
Will you get individuals who try to control others, of course you will. Will you get the rah,rah, cheerleaders who add nothing to the analysis but feel the move they have is better, yes. Each person has his own reasons and circumstances, time and experience, and knows something that you don't. You may choose to limit access for any reason that strikes your fancy, but you lose the flavor of the moment. Those that play votechess on a regular basis already recognize the personality types that are present, you can choose to join,leave,oppose,go with the flow,contribute, or not. Limiting the rights of others for infringement of personalities not violating website policies, hmmm.
cuendillar wrote:
I probably count as one of those "top rated" players in vote chess (rtg 2336). I see vote chess as team chess. A large team to cooperate and reach a consensus on what move to play so that the result is an entity not just stronger than the average rating, but about 200-400 points stronger than the top voters. That is the ideal and it's far from impossible.
I follow that myself to the letter, putting down large amounts of time and effort to find stem games to analyse, stimulate discussion , suggest lines and search for refutations etc while not myself voting on the first day and certainly never before the lines I gave were approved by other analysis. I know I do not see everything and thus lets others proof-check what I find. Several times I have voted against my own proposal if another move appeared better.
It is the right of everyone to suggest ideas in the forum and give their votes for any move, but it is also their "duty" to the team to first read the discussion through and, if your own move hasn't been analysed, suggest it and wait for response before voting. Then, however, you have all more or less the same ability to make the best decision. To do otherwise is to spit on those who makes a real effort to analyse.
My suggestion for a constructive change in vote chess is the right to change ones vote at will. That would make it easier for players who may change their mind during the course of voting.
Strong players have one extra task - to explain their ideas in a way that others can understand and agree with. That can often be difficult enough to do.
To clarify, I have absolutely nothing against players weaker than me, just those too lazy to read before voting.
We all respect you, cuendillar! Spl. the ppl who read your posts in the daily puzzle forum.
In a better votechess-world, a majority - or a significant minority - of strong players (who also play votechess) would be like you - and this thread would not be needed. Unfortunately we are far from being there.
onehandgann wrote: Another idea that comes to mind when thinking of vote chess is to allow chess.com members to form teams and play against other teams in the same style of vote chess. That is another way members could form long term relationships with other members and learn from each other.
Very good idea!
Very good idea!
I love vote chess, what a learning opportunity it is. And the discussions are just as attractive as the chess itself. I am entertained by both. I see nothing wrong with the current system, although it can become dominated by some, but that is usually ok. I am not a person who is gonna take their ball and go home if I dont get what I want. The way I see it, vote chess is a free lesson because higher rated players participate and help nurse lower rated people like me to a better chess understanding. I have seen ego trip higher rated players jocky for vote dominance. Its fun to see them battle it out with each other. hmmm Ultimate Chess Fighting? There is the next big thing.
Jul 9, 2008
0
#48
I think a lot of these issues will go away when we launch Group vs. Group (or Team vs. Team) Vote Chess games. Then you can control it the way you want it :)
Fair?
Sounds great.
Controls sound great. There are definitely different types of 'vote chess' players, for example (1) the ones who want to discuss, come up with an optimal move or two as a team, and then vote based on that discussion and (2) the ones who want to look at the position for a couple minutes, pick a best move, and go on with their lives.
we could devide teams buy captains and generals... at the end of a given game... if someone proves themselves worthy... a vote can go up weither to make them a captain... this way power can be deligated in a more meaningful way.... those people will be captains from then on... whatever team the join, you'll see a little C next to their names, so people might actualy pay attention...
Just play your move! You can read what everyone else thinks later...
Or we could have a party system within each team; 3-line whips, conscience votes, no confidence motions, defections, expulsions [from party], corruption scandals, ...
... and shadow PMs, shadow chancellors of the exchequer, backbench rebellions..
batmanmg wrote: we could devide teams buy captains and generals
Yes, mercenary captains and generals -- 'the best that money can buy' ... hmmm
I have a suggestion for vote chess, how about you see what the percentages are before you vote, OR leave the percentages and be able to change your vote after you have already voted. I hate when I vote for something and then the discussion changes and makes that move seem inferior, but then I cannnot go back. Either I would like to see what is being voted on more, or be able to change my vote after further analysis.
yes, vote retraction would be a great idea - i've suggested it earlier on this thread. So, two votes on that one now!
Jul 9, 2008
0
#59
Hopefully when they implement the group vote thing, there will be selectable options such as those that have been brought up here. That way you get to play in the kind of votechess games that you like.
Personally, I would really like it if these things were variable like that, as I can see the appeal of both sides of certain options. For instance, I get the point about being able to change your vote after some discussion has taken place, and I've wished I could do it myself a couple of times. But, OTOH, I also like to see how the voting public tries to deal with the aftermath of a game that's not going "the right way" precisely because people voted without talking it over first - and are stuck with their votes as they made them in the first place. One of the challenges in votechess is that you have more than one opponent - of course you are playing against the other team, but there are also the other voters on your own team to consider, and they can often be opposed to your own plan of action. That's what I find most interesting about the whole thing.